When I use your approach to debate atheists, they keep hitting me with this question: “If human reasoning is so faulty, then why do you fly on planes, drive in cars, and go to medical doctors?” We literally put our lives in the reasoning ability of the unregenerate. Do you have an article that directly deals with this problem?

As far as I can recall, I have not directly addressed this objection, and I will tell you why. If I am going to bring up non-Christian objections and answer them, then it is only fair that I present them in the best possible light, and deal with their strongest proponents and arguments. But the problem is that non-Christians have no intelligent representatives and arguments. And it is impossible for me to imagine something intelligent that an unbeliever can say against Christianity, because there is nothing intelligent that anyone can say against Christianity. It is often difficult for me to make up examples of what unbelievers would say against Christianity, because every conceivable possibility seems so stupid that, even with what I understand about the foolishness of unbelievers, I do not want to put in their mouths such stupid things if they would not actually say them.

This explains why I have been unable to write a book of dialogues between believers and unbelievers to illustrate the principles of biblical apologetics. It is no longer possible for me to stoop to that almost subhuman intellectual level, even in my imagination, in order to ascertain what they would say — they will have to tell me. So I usually deal with only those arguments and objections that I come across in published materials, personal encounters, and questions from readers and students. And sure enough, all of them are so stupid that I could never come up with them, or imagine that these are things that any sentient being could say. Here you have given me another example of something so stupid, so easy to answer, that it never crossed my mind as something that could be used as an objection against Christianity.

Now, if we reason validly from and about God’s revelation to us, that is also “human” reasoning in one sense, since we are human, and we are doing the reasoning. Not only is there nothing wrong with this, but it is how God commands us to worship and to function. A human who receives and follows God’s revelation is also one who reasons according to truth. So what we undermine is not human reasoning as such, but empty speculation, which is what the unbelievers call reasoning. Apart from divine revelation and his innate constitution, man has no epistemological power or principle to discover anything about the truth, so all non-Christian thinking amounts to false assumptions about reality processed by either valid inferences from these assumptions, which produce false conclusions, or invalid inferences from them, which also produce false conclusions. Therefore, all non-Christian thoughts are false, foolish, and futile. Christ is the savior of man’s intellect and sanity. Without Christ, man is stupid and insane.¹ This is the condition of every unbeliever.

There are three parts to my answer. The first two do not directly answer the objection, but make observations that neutralize it. The third part is a direct answer, and it is followed by some comments on apologetics in general.

First, the objection does not refute or even attempt to answer our arguments. It is directed at the part of our apologetic method that destroys several elements of non-biblical epistemologies, including empiricism, induction, science. But the objection does not refute our arguments against these things, nor does it provide positive justification for them. In fact, there is no direct relevance between the objection and our arguments against non-biblical epistemologies.

Even if the objection succeeds, the most that it can do is to show that Christians do not practice what they believe, that they are inconsistent — that is, we argue that non-biblical epistemologies are false, but then rely on their conclusions anyway. Again, this would not prove that non-biblical epistemologies are correct. But in fact, it does not even show that Christians are inconsistent, for who says that we do not like to live dangerously? Maybe this is the reason we use inventions and technologies produced by the unbelievers. Therefore, even if Christians are made speechless by this objection, it still does not mean that the Christians are wrong and the non-Christians are right. But as we will see in the third part of our response, we do have an answer for it. So this objection accomplishes nothing. On the other hand, it implies that they have no rational response against our attack on non-biblical epistemologies. If they have a proper response, and if they can provide positive justification for empiricism, induction, and science, then why do they even need to mention this irrelevant objection?

As for those Christians who defend non-biblical epistemologies, it is significant that they also use this type of objections. For example, they would argue that by denying these elements of non-biblical epistemologies, it becomes impossible for us to perform even mundane tasks, like reading a book or changing a tire. Such a disappointing argument has the stench of non-Christian incompetence all over it — for one, it begs the question, since without even arguing against our epistemology, it assumes that theirs is necessary. Moreover, they make this objection without showing that they can perform these tasks based on the non-biblical epistemologies. They cannot get out of the pit by taking others down with them, that is, even if they can take others down. So the effect of the objection is that they are the ones who cannot perform these mundane tasks, since they claim that these elements in their epistemologies are necessary, but fail to provide justification for them or answer our arguments against them. And what about the biblical epistemology that we provide? They offer no successful refutation.

Second, non-Christian inventions and technologies indeed fail very often. Thousands of problems related to planes, cars, computers, medicines, and so on occur every day. Thousands more are caused by human error that have to do with scientific reasoning, inductive inferences, and unreliable sensations. These errors not only result in various inconveniences and financial losses, but they cost hundreds upon hundreds of human lives.

So their objection serves only to reinforce our point — they have no idea what they are doing. That they will even bring this up as an objection against Christianity and as an answer to our arguments against non-biblical epistemologies is another illustration that these are indeed extremely stupid people. They actually think that this is an effective retort against us, but it is only an occasion for us to recall their failures, and the millions of people that they have killed.

Of course, they will claim that their methods have made many positive contributions and saved many lives. The third part of our answer takes care of this. But even here we can point out that, in a debate about the ability to know reality, to argue from effect is to commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent, which is also one of the fundamental fallacies of the scientific method. So effect is irrelevant. And to bring it up here is also to beg the question, since there must be a reliable epistemology to even detect and measure the effects.

Third — this is our direct and positive response to the objection — all non-Christians and their activities are under God’s control, and it is in God that we trust, not the non-Christians. God is sovereign and powerful. If he wishes, he can cause a paper plane to carry us thousands of miles to our destination, or cause what is usually a deadly poison to exhibit healing properties.

There is no independently constant nature inherent in anything that God has created. In other words, a created object does not possess an inherent power to sustain its own existence and properties apart from God, but it is God who continuously maintains its existence and actively prescribes its properties, moment by moment. This is why Calvin writes, “Indeed, not even an abundance of bread would benefit us in the slightest unless it were divinely turned into nourishment.” There is nothing inherent in bread that can nourish. Rather, on each occasion that bread is consumed, God acts on the bread so that it becomes nourishment to the body, and acts on the body so that it receives nourishment from the bread.

Since this view rests upon omnipotence and exhibits no self-contradiction, right away it is at least possible by definition. Then, given that it is the only position that does not crumble under analysis, and given that it is also what Scripture teaches and implies, it is also the only biblical, rational, and indeed the only possible position. This is a form of metaphysical occasionalism — every other view, whether or not it claims to be biblical, cannot withstand the simplest scrutiny. Then, since all of reality operates under God, including knowledge acquisition, a true epistemology must be derived from and consistent with this view of metaphysics. Therefore, biblical occasionalism is the only true metaphysic and epistemology. Given this understanding, there is no difficulty in affirming that even a plane designed by non-Christians just might fly, although we have zero confidence in their intellectual abilities.

The point of their objection is to allege an inconsistency in our position, and our answer shows that there is no such inconsistency. In other words, given our knowledge of God and our dependence upon him, it raises no problem for us to interact the way we do with the inventions and technologies produced by non-Christians, since all the processes and effects of what they do in fact rest in God’s plan and power, for his glory and for our benefit. So, those who deny that there is a God, or that he is the absolute controller over creation, must attempt to refute our position from an altogether different angle. It is unspeakable stupidity to think that we are inconsistent just because we use cars and planes.

Of course, non-Christians might not believe that there is a God, or that God is the sovereign active controller over every person and every object in his creation. However, their objection removes God from the discussion without addressing this, and then poses a challenge against us on that basis. Our refutation of all non-biblical epistemologies is done in the context of proclaiming a God who is sovereign over all, including the thoughts and activities of all unbelievers, and the effects of their inventions and technologies. How then, can they defend these non-biblical epistemologies by claiming that we rely on them? Without providing a refutation, the objection ignores what we proclaim about this God who is sovereign over all. Where did they get this idea that we rely on their reasoning abilities? The whole debate occurs in the first place because we affirm faith and dependence on a sovereign God who controls everything. So their objection begs the question.

Here we find an instructive illustration for the apologist in training. The non-Christian objection takes God — the God that Christians affirm, and the very God that we are having the debate about — altogether out of the equation. And the only way that a Christian could be stumped by this objection is if he does the same thing. The apologist might be doing very well throughout a conversation, but all of a sudden, he comes up against a question, argument, or objection that returns him to a non-Christian way of thinking. When this happens, of course he does not know how to proceed. He probably thinks that biblical apologetics, even if it can answer the objection, does not equip him to come up with the answer. Perhaps he needs to ask someone who is more knowledgeable. Perhaps he needs to consult someone more experienced. Perhaps the best thing to do is to run down a long list of objections with an expert apologist and memorize the answers. But the only problem is that he has stopped using biblical apologetics.

There is no deficiency in the system of theology and apologetics that he has received, but he has for the moment laid them aside. This is the only possible cause of failure for anyone who has been taught the biblical method — that is, the only way he can fail is if he stops using it. The only way a person can lose to a moron in debate is if he begins to think like one. Now he sees things from the unbeliever’s false perspective, and so he thinks, “Why, yes, I do depend on their reasoning abilities. How do I get out of this one now?” A Christian might stop thinking like a Christian in the middle of debate because something is said that puts pressure on a part of his belief system that has not been sufficiently renewed by biblical teaching. In that area of his mind, on that particular subject, he still disagrees with God — maybe not entirely, but his thinking fluctuates. This is why, although we can prescribe some techniques, and although we offer direct answers to many questions, we have always emphasized that biblical apologetics is not just a list of prepared answers to standard objections. Rather, it is a way of thinking — holding to divine revelation as the only infallible body of knowledge, it then processes information and interacts with opposition through a precise application of logic.

Holding fast to God’s revelation to us means that we affirm all that it teaches, including what it says about the intellectual incompetence of unbelievers. The unbelievers are always wrong, and their objections are always easy to answer. In fact, their intellectual powers are so thoroughly diminished that every objection that they utter is thoroughly foolish. It is not only something easy to answer, but also something that we can use to destroy their belief systems. Therefore, unlike non-biblical approaches to apologetics, we do not play a game of block-and-punch with unbelievers. We do not block each objection, back off, take our stance, and then advance our own strike. And we know better than to expect them to stand still while we recite our twelve-part presentation, as one popular course in classical apologetics teaches. No, non-Christian objections themselves already show how stupid they are without the illumination of Christ, and each one provides us with the occasion to totally annihilate their belief systems and demolish their intellectual credentials. Everything that an unbeliever says is something that we can use to hurt him. So when the non-Christian throws us a punch, we do not just block it and wait for the next attack, but we grab his arm and pivot our body, using his momentum to pull him in while we snap his arm and crush his windpipe with our elbow — all in one motion.² And we do this again, and again, and again. This is spiritual vigilance. This is biblical apologetics. Until Christians accept the biblical truth that non-Christians — those without Christ — are constantly and pervasively sinful and stupid, they will never become faithful and effective apologists for the faith.

Let us broaden our subject for a moment. Unbelievers assault our faith not only from an intellectual perspective, but they also use political and other kinds of pressure in the attempt to wipe out our influence, or even our very existence. In the face of this, we are certain of victory, not because of our effort, and not even because of their incompetence. But we know that unbelievers will never succeed in destroying the church because God has established his people on the earth, and he has promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against us. In Christ, we are invincible; we are indestructible. And we need not grit our teeth or prime our emotions as we say this, either, since the flesh possesses no power to enforce divine promises. God’s word holds true by his omnipotence, and we rest in him.

We are confident of our enduring intellectual dominance, not because of our inherent superiority, but because the intellectual opposition against Christianity is in reality a struggle against the mind and the wisdom of God. And this is the clash that we arrange in biblical apologetics. When we learn to perceive the conflict from this proper perspective, all fears and worries melt away, and we become amused at the non-Christians’ foolishness and presumption — they are so stupid that they would even try to overcome infinite wisdom in debate.

In a similar way, every other kind of opposition against Christianity is in fact an assault, not against the believers as such, but against the Lord. And how does he respond? Is he worried and fearful? Scripture says that he scoffs at them, that is, at those who think that they could conspire against him. Are they going to outlaw the Almighty? The Lord laughs about this (Psalm 2:4). In faith, may we all learn to laugh with him.

“Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and the LORD is with us: fear them not” (Numbers 14:9, KJV).

NOTES

¹ Name-calling is not a fallacy in at least two types of situations. First, if the derogatory name or label appears in the context of a valid argument, and is the result of this argument, then the name or label is in fact a logical conclusion, not a fallacy. Second, if it is part of a person’s worldview to apply this name or label, then he must be permitted to express it just as he is permitted to express any other part of his worldview during the course of debate, so that his beliefs can be discussed and examined, and so that he can tell his opponent precisely what he affirms and wishes to defend. For someone to commit a name-calling fallacy, he must commit some logical error in his application of the name or label. For example, if the name or label is irrelevant to the debate, or if the person uses the name or label instead of an argument, then it is a fallacy. But if the person who applies the name or label can show that it fits his opponent, then it cannot be a fallacy, no matter how insulting the name sounds.

² Many Christians are not foolhardy enough to oppose Paul’s vivid military metaphors, but although ours are similar in principle, they are criticized and misrepresented out of sheer hypocrisy by those professing believers who disagree with Scripture on the subject, but who lack the audacity to directly oppose it. Let us make it clear that we are not urging physical violence, but using these metaphors, we are referring to what happens in the spiritual/intellectual realm as we perform biblical apologetics. In fact, we are not even encouraging Christians to defend the faith in a harsh or offensive manner, although that is sometimes acceptable and even necessary, but we are mainly referring to content, attitude, method, and strategy.